The truth about a complex built for veterans and the middle class and how it has evolved through the years to become one of the more interesting and controversial of New York stories.

Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved.

NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog. Because of the anonymous nature of the commentary, specific agendas can be pushed by a sole individual and may not reflect a more popular belief by the residents of this community.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Dan Garodnick and Vornado Realty and Rising Rents in Manhattan

Vornado Realty Trust (NYSE: VNO)("Vornado") is one of the largest owners and managers of commercial real estate in the United States with a portfolio of over 100 million square feet, primarily located in the New York and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. Vornado's core businesses include: New York Office Properties; Washington, DC Office Properties; Retail Properties and Merchandise Mart Properties.

Its Wikipedia page is more detailed, to include properties the company owns in NYC (a lot): Vornado Realty Trust.

Vornado was at the epicenter of a controversy in 2010 regarding the prospective demolishing of Hotel Pennsylvania to be replaced by 15 Penn Plaza. The controversy involved the height of the proposed building (68 stories), which, being so close to the Empire State Building,would forever change the iconic "postcard" view of Manhattan. Not only was this a controversy on an aesthetic, historical and architectural level, but zoning did not allow for the erection of such a tall building in that area. As is known by now, though, zoning laws in NYC can be done away by the powers that be. (Also term limits, landmark designations, you name it.) The City Council, by a vote of 47-1 granted Vornado Realty the rights to build 15 Penn Plaza.

My lengthy, and angry, post when this occurred is here. Bloomberg News' James S. Russell, in this review of the proposed 15 Penn Plaza building, wrote: "A behemoth office tower that may rise opposite Pennsylvania Station would deface New York City’s skyline and cast a pall over surrounding streets already shortchanged on light and air. " Former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern testified that 15 Penn Plaza "could do irreparable harm" to the city and, writing for the Huffington Post, made a blistering attack on the travesty that occurred with the vote: "This is a case of the city making an extraordinary gift, probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to one of its richest and most influential developers."

Dan Garodnick voted in Vornado's favor.

Now we move to the present, and the yet unannounced candidacy of Dan Garodnick for City Comptroller. So far he has received over 1 million dollars in donations, a sizable portion of which come from real estate firms--to include, surprise-surprise, Vornado.

According to NYC's Campaign Finance Board Database, Vornado's CEO, Steven Roth has donated twice, once in 2010, for 1K (before the 15 Penn Plaza vote) and then recently (after the 15 Penn Plaza vote) for whopping $4,950. The latter number is the maximum allowed by law, so unless there is some glitch in the accounting or other mistake, that earlier 1K is suspect, as its addition seems to go over the legal amount allowed for an individual donating to someone running for city comptroller.

It doesn't just end there. Steven Roth's wife, Daryl Roth, has also donated money for Garodnick's campaign. Yes, the max: $4,950. So, one household, with clear ties to Vornado (the CEO and the CEO's wife), has donated almost $10,000 to Dan, and over that amount if we include that suspect 1K.

Though I'm sure Dan Garodnick has his public-relations justifications for voting in favor of 15 Penn Plaza (jobs/a city that can't stand still/whatever), the appearance of a quid-pro-quo is troubling. Garodnick is not the only politician accepting monies from real estate interests come election time. The other City Council politicians, like Christine Quinn (who stated she would NOT accept such donations, but has, including over 15K from Vornado in past campaigns) and Scott Stringer (whose coffers have been one of largest and heftiest with real estate money deposits; the guy's running for mayor, may the Lord help us) have all held out their collective hands.

Why should real estate concerns donating to local politicians be troubling? The fact is that real estate enterprises are in the business of maximizing profits. "Affordable" middle class housing does not maximize profits. Housing for the rich, the sons and daughters of the rich, and for tourists spending big bucks in Manhattan, maximize profits. The middle class are only useful as workers and consumers in Manhattan. Live in Brooklyn, Queens or New Jersey, otherwise.

The stark reality is that the middle class is being priced out of Manhattan, both as tenants and as mom-and-pop businesses. And real estate companies, by their very nature, are behind this price-out.

Bloomberg Tower

Let's take a look at Bloomberg Tower, a property developed and owned by Vornado. This NY Times article details the progress of a neighborhood. While the article is very much pro-Vornado, you will find a sentence that hints at another part of the story. The money shot comes near the end of the article: "Other retailers east of Third Avenue, an area that has traditionally had more service-oriented retailing, like restaurants, locksmiths, dry cleaners, cocktail lounges and delicatessens, said they were feeling the pinch of the Bloomberg Tower, either in the form of rising retail rents or more competition for the potential customers in the office tower and in One Beacon Court."

Rising rents.... Rising rents serve only to benefit the real estate entities that own property or build it. When real estate firms maximize profits, rents go up and the middle class gets displaced. Even if the favorable real estate situation goes bust (a pattern when greed runs rampant), the fallout will not bring middle class tenants and mom-and-pop stores back once they have left.

So the real estate people are the major players in what Manhattan is turning into, aside from the influence of a mayor like Bloomberg. And if you had any doubts about these companies lording over Manhattan in a game of real-life Monopoly, actualizing their conquerors' dream of altering a city forever, you may find this of interest, as you recognize some familiar real estate business names. Vornado's CEO, speaking a couple of years ago about the development of mid-town's West Side:

"Much has already happened," Mr. Roth continued, "to increase the value of our Penn Station assets. The Penn Plaza District and the West Side of New York have been discovered and are the beneficiaries of an enormous amount of recent and current activity. A huge swath has already been rezoned as the future growth corridor of Manhattan. Tishman Speyer has won the bidding to develop the Hudson Rail Yards into a 12 million square foot, 20-year, Canary Wharf-type project. Brookfield has announced 5 million square feet…. Vornado was the pioneer here, and owns the best and the lion's share of the real estate surrounding Pennsylvania Station - the gateway to the new West Side….The Hotel Pennsylvania, Seventh Avenue at 33rd Street, generated a best ever $37.9 million of EBITDA in 2007, $10.4 million more than in 2006, a 37.8% increase ….The credit crisis and Merrill's management changes disrupted this deal, but the fact remains that our site was the last man standing in a rigorous citywide search."

To be fair, one must note that some plans for development contain, through political and public pressure, the assurance of middle class housing or rentals "below market rate." So, in such a scenario a real estate entity would be required to provide a percentage of apartments for people of moderate means in any mass development project. How this will play out in reality remains to be seen. We here in Stuy Town/PCV are already getting, possibly, a similar equation brewing with the TA/Brookfield plan which hints at a percentage of apartments being set aside as permanent rentals for tenants of moderate means, with possible financial assistance thrown into the mix. Assuredly, real estate firms will wish to keep this percentage of forced give-aways as low as possible.

The reality was and remains that real estate entities are the natural enemies of affordable middle class housing. Politicians who want to see a different version of Manhattan than the one that we've been speedily heading toward (blocks of high rises w/ground floor banks, chain drug stores, Starbucks), politicians who are 100% sincere about "affordable middle class housing" (a mantra continually repeated by every politician who speaks to Stuy Town/PCV residents), should not be accepting money from real estate companies. If they do, then you know which side they are really on and what their "progressive" vision is for New York.

Also, didn't 47 out of 48 council members vote for this (indeed, it may have been a ministerial vote on some sort of permit issue they would have been hard-pressed to avoid a yes). There are some pretty liberal/progressive members of city council, so if they voted yes, it likely was a routine vote. I don't really see how this shows Dan is in bed with big real estate.

This definitely was NOT some "ministerial vote." A major issue and controversy when it happened. The fact that most council members except one voted on Vornado's side indicates the power of Vornado and what I will gently call the "prejudice" of the city council when it comes to saying yes or no to big-money.

Also don't forget the various scandals that surround members of the City Council, such as Christine Quinn's slush fund....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/end-the-slush-fund.html

The "well, everyone does it" routine shouldn't be an excuse, unless we let it.

As if we did not suffer enough on 9/11, we had to have a Decade of Disaster at the hands of Bloomberg and his buddies. Corporate greed has totally destroyed the very essence of this city and there's nothing we can do about it because even the election process was hijacked by Bloomberg to buy is illegal third term which will surely put the last nails in the coffin. I will never vote for any of these people.

I am no fan of big real estate, but this is a dog that doesn't bite. This is nothing like say, Atlantic Yards or something. I don't really want our condo conversion to become a political anti-Garodnick negative campaign ad. If you don't like Garodnick for comptroller, that's fine, I'm not sure I even know who I'd vote for yet, but bringing in politics that don't apply here is so divisive and irrelevant.

If all the city council are corrupt, then let's just throw up our hands and give up and never trust anyone ever. And if the one vote against was for minority hiring, that implies that he/she would have voted yes otherwise. Again, I am no fan of real estate developers as a rule, but we can't say no to every building.

>>I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. You don't seem to like Dan or developers. We get that. Why do we give a f--- and what does this have to do with PCVST?<<

It can have everything to do with us. Please note where I mention ST/PCV in the post. Also, and this is critically important, "affordable middle class housing" is a major fight in the city, and one we are very much involved in, whether we like it or not.

Rest easy...I work across the street from the proposed tower site and nothing is going up there for several years...at least. The WTC site is going to dump so many million square feet of rentable space on an already soggy market that the need for a couple million more won't be there for quite some time.

In fact, this site was originally proposed as the new world headquarters of an investment bank (Goldman Sachs was rumored), but then they recently moved into their new West Street bunker/castle...so that ain't happening either.

So I'd plan for the old Pennsylvania Hotel (which is not a very architecturally significant building) to remain in place for the forseeable future.

It doesn't matter that the stinking tower isn't going up (yet); what matters is Garodnick's being in bed with so many real estate dirtbags. I don't trust him. I'm just wondering what his real motive is in pushing this Brookfield deal, especially as it is so secretive and no competing plans are being considered.

Real estate firms ALWAYS contribute to local politicians. That's because they can't move their buildings somewhere else and want to have some input in regulations and laws. Regarding the TA/Brookfield bid: why would CW accept an offer on something that isn't for sale? When it is for sale, wouldn't they accept NUMEROUS bids to work them up to the highest number? Just sayin...

I see that the misleadingly named RSA is putting out its propaganda ads again. They're claiming that tenants in rent stabilized apartments are wealthy and if they have to pay their fair share of taxes (as in if they're millionaires!), then they should pay their fair share of rent too. I don't know any millionaires who live in RS apartments (not counting notorious moochers like Faye Dunaway), but the implication by the RSA clearly is that many, if not most, RS tenants are members of the "1%." I'm the RSA is quite relieved that our Tenants Association is distracted by the ownership discussions and probably won't be taking up the cause for the preservation of rent regulations with the zest that they have shown in the past. Too bad. We need the TA more than ever now to help in this fight. Some of us have no financial ability to purchase our apartments, even if we wanted to - and not all of us want to. I guess we don't matter any more.

>>I'm the RSA is quite relieved that our Tenants Association is distracted by the ownership discussions and probably won't be taking up the cause for the preservation of rent regulations with the zest that they have shown in the past.<<

You may not realize it STR, but Management might have a lot to do - legally or ILLEGALLY - with the TA's ability to communicate with tenants. And we all know that Management is NOT above breaking the law when it wants to.

Oval Concierge - run by Abigail Michaels under lucrative contract with Management - has been a major pick- up and drop off point for TA communication with tenants for years. If Management feels threatened - and it very well might since it will kicked out of here for sure if the TA and Brookfield are successful - they might have told Abigail Michaels to terminate its relationship with the TA in order to thwart the TA's ability to disseminate information. If they have done that they are gonna be on deep trouble. The TA and Brookfield won't take it lying down. Brookfield has very deep pockets and I'm sure they will pay or help to pay for any legal expenses that might be involved. If it's true it's a very stupid move on the part of Adam Rose. Very stupid, indeed. That's why I asked for a furthur explanation of what is going on.

>>Oval Concierge - run by Abigail Michaels under lucrative contract with Management - has been a major pick- up and drop off point for TA communication with tenants for years. If Management feels threatened - and it very well might since it will kicked out of here for sure if the TA and Brookfield are successful - they might have told Abigail Michaels to terminate its relationship with the TA in order to thwart the TA's ability to disseminate information.<<

That would be an interesting development. Isn't everyone entitled to use the Concierge, as long as they pay whatever fees are applicable? (Sorry, I know little about the services/fees the Concierge provides.)

Someone from the group formerly known as the TA pushed one of those advertisments under my door. I pushed it out, the person pushed it back under, I pushed it back out. They tried to push it back in but I blocked the way. Person rang door bell and asked me to take one or their announcements. I told them I do not take solicitations under my door. She said it wasnt a solicitation. I took it looked at it and handed it right back and said to her, it most certainly was a solicitation from the new sales department at Brookfield, the group formerly known as the Tenants Association. To this minute the paper sits outside my door where it will remain until Adam Rose sends someone to pick up the trash. Another waste of CW capitals money.

That would be an interesting development. Isn't everyone entitled to use the Concierge, as long as they pay whatever fees are applicable? (Sorry, I know little about the services/fees the Concierge provides.)

Everyone here is only allowed to do what mega-dictator Adam Rose allows them to do, at least until the TA's lawyers or the legal system intervenes and Mr. Rose is told to back down or else. If he told Oval Concierge/Abigail Michaels to boot the TA, then that's probably what happened. Oval Concierge/Abigail Michaels know what side their bread is buttered on, but, like I said, if that is in fact what happened it's a very foolish and stupid thing to have done and Adam Rose is probably going to have a hell of a fight on his hands and a TON of bad press to deal with.

A rep from Guterman was speaking on the radio this afternoon regarding the proposed conversion. It was a brief interview but the key point made by the rep was that they regretted working through the TA. They felt that they didn't get a fair shake in making a proposal.

Said they "learned their lesson" and they were going to step up direct communications with tenants.

Good.

I hope we see others enter the fray.

The more parties that compete over this deal the better chance we have of being presented with a reasonable deal. Even then, we may be well advised to decline it. That part remains to be seen.

I just hope that Guterman doesn't slide any glossy photos under my door. That's just a waste of paper and it probably ends up embarrassing the women and children they profile...

I received this message from Adam Rose, which he stated can be posted:

"I am happy to help people with problems working with the Management Office. Please invite the Anonymous writer who can’t get his or her plumbing problem fixed to just email me directly. By the way, I have nothing to do with the owner’s decision to not accept returned forms from a potential bidder at the property and its vendors. The owner has made a decision to remain completely neutral regarding the various potential buyers, a policy that I can understand. Your writers may find it amusing to blame me, but I have nothing to do with the owner’s policies. Blame me for something that I have control over, and I will provide substantive answers, as I have done all along."

Your writers may find it amusing to blame me, but I have nothing to do with the owner’s policies. Blame me for something that I have control over, and I will provide substantive answers, as I have done all along."

No one finds any thwarting of the tenants' ability to get out from under the grip of either CW Capital or you amusing, no matter who is responsible, Mr. Rose. Neither of you is good for tenants, or ever will be.

And since you mentioned it, how about a substantive answer about exactly what kind of floor covering is acceptable. That question has been asked numerous times and tenants have never gotten a direct answer. That is something that you have control over, Mr. Rose, and your allowing the poor excuses for floor coverings that you do is a reason for many of the noise problems and complaints that tenants have. And you know it.

I don't personally find it "amusing" to "blame" Adam Rose for anything. What I find do amusing is his spin on why the special servicer says 'no more' to allowing our Tenants Association to use Oval Concierge as a pick up/drop-off point for tenant-related printed material. Complete neutrality? Telling ST-PCV businesses that they can no longer do business with our Tenants Association looks more like a ham-handed attempt to disrupt a critical line of communication between the TA and tenants. Disrupting that line actually gives the other bidders a leg up on us so so I call BS: CW Capital is really not acting "neutral" in this case. At all.

"Blame me for something that I have control over, and I will provide substantive answers, as I have done all along."

Trash in the basement.Trash on the sidewalks.Piles of rotting leaves "composting."Defective, filthy laundry facilities.Illegal Oval enterprises.Short-staffing of building maintenance.Pressure-walling and student housing.

I think there's a word limit so I'll just stop here and wait for progress on one of these issues before writing more.

No one really expects you to manage the condo perversion process. Just get cracking on the above list and we'd all be impressed. We'd be surprised, too.

That's only if Adam Rose is telling the truth STR, but leave it to you to draw the wrong conclusions.

If I'm recalling that televised forum (can't remember the name and host) with a panel of real estate moguls and Dan Garodnick correctly, the opinion was unanimous that ANY deal would have to go through the tenants as long as we remained united.

Stuy Town Reporter said...>>I'm the RSA is quite relieved that our Tenants Association is distracted by the ownership discussions and probably won't be taking up the cause for the preservation of rent regulations with the zest that they have shown in the past.<<

You mean the kind of zest that the TA used in partnership with other housing groups around the state this past June to successfully strengthen and protect rent regulations? UMM YUP!

The TA deals with many things, conversion is just one and it believes is the only shot at preserving long-term affordability. Without rent protections laws this place would have been sold to the highest bidder and all the RS tenants would be out on their ass.

"You mean the kind of zest that the TA used in partnership with other housing groups around the state this past June to successfully strengthen and protect rent regulations? UMM YUP!"

I didn't notice any zest from the TA this past June when it came to fighting for strengthening the rent stabilization laws. They were too busy salivating at the prospect of buying. That seems to be all they are focused on.

"I didn't notice any zest from the TA this past June when it came to fighting for strengthening the rent stabilization laws."

So I guess I didn't notice you when the TA marched with signs to the Rent Guidelines Board hearings. And I guess I didn't notice you on the buses that went to Albany to fight for the renewal of RS. Several TA board members were on it (including one very enthusiastic proponent of ownership), as was Dan. Steve Sanders and Brian Kavanagh shepherded us to various meetings there.

10:58 p.m--could you be any more ungrateful and clueless? And what did you do?

God, you people are old cranks! All you do is bitch and moan and criticize what other people are or aren't doing. Look to your own behavior. I'm quite sure I hear you walking, see you leaving unwashed recycling, etc. You are NO better than or more entitled to be here than any other tenants. You just aren't.

"I didn't notice any zest from the TA this past June when it came to fighting for strengthening the rent stabilization laws. They were too busy salivating at the prospect of buying. That seems to be all they are focused on:

Perhaps then you are one of those lazy, complacent RSTs living in your apartment with your head in the sand.

Which means you missed that fact that the TA began the campaign for strengthening and renewal in Dec of 2010 carried the torch until the very end when the laws actually expired, but were ultimately renewed and strengthened for the first time in decades.

Its activities included conducting two postcard campaigns which involved two complex-wide stuffings, collecting over 1,100 signatures on a petition to governor cuomo. Participating in rallies outside his midtown office, sending buses to Albany to advocate for renewal, and launched two phone and email campaigns calling on the governor to not just renew but to strengthen rent regulations.

I might add that Council Member Garodnick and Assembly Member Kavanagh were with us all the way.

Hi sweetie. Um, no, you or any other neighbor does not hear us 'walking'. we are considerate and never step foot in our place without taking our shoes off. And yes, we clean up after ourselves, not leaving it for our porters to do so in the laundry room and also we happily recycle properly so .

Just because someone doesnt agree with the TA and their approach to things doesnt make one evil as some of the TA's defenders suggest. Other people involve themselves in the issues in different ways. No, I didnt board a bus and head to Albany. I couldnt, I have a job and people who rely on me to support them. However, I did attend a check party thrown by a group of former TA members. Each person attending the party brought a $50 check made out to one of 3 organizations supporting Rent Stabilization (including the TA, however, not one check was made out to them). Over 30 people attended so over $1500 was raised to help the cause. I also sent hand written letters (not mass produced cards) to legislators. I followed those up with e-mails and phone calls, as did many others. Remember it was a group of tenants, not the TA that got the zoning issues on the front burner finally lighting a fire under Councilmember Garodnick who along with the TA did nothing about this issue until they saw tenants organizing without them. I give credit to the TA where credit is due, I do not hold them or Dan Garodnick in awe and think they walk on water. I do not support their conversion plan. In fact, I do not think that they have any right to hold themselves out as representatives of the tenants in regard to a sale of the property when their membership is only a small percentage of tenants. And yes, I did sign a unity pledge, some 5 to 6 years ago. And no I did not give the TA my approval to negotiate a deal for the sale of my home by signing that form so many years ago. I wonder if one could take the TA to court and have them cease and desist as representatives of tenants in this regard? Hmmm.

Anonymous 2:05p.m.: If your previous rent was preferential, that is, lower than what RS would allow, on renewal the landlord can bring it up to the full allowable RS amount, even if that is a higher percentage than the RGB guidelines. Did you get a month free on your last lease or some other reduction? You may need to check your rent history. Of course this is all complicated by Roberts not being settled.

I just thought of the way in which dog ownership will be controlled and diminished. It can only happen if conversion takes place. Then when owners see people letting dogs to their thing on the lawns they will yell at them because turning this place into a dog run will lower property values. Yelling & harassment stemming from ownership. That will do it. When dog #1 dies, people will think...should I get another one? Then they'll think to themselves...I'd like to, but I can't stand the yelling & the harassment.

"I just thought of the way in which dog ownership will be controlled and diminished. It can only happen if conversion takes place. Then when owners see people letting dogs to their thing on the lawns they will yell at them because turning this place into a dog run will lower property values. Yelling & harassment stemming from ownership. That will do it. When dog #1 dies, people will think...should I get another one? Then they'll think to themselves...I'd like to, but I can't stand the yelling & the harassment."

Oh how I wish I could agree with you. I agree though that the conversion is the ONLY hope we have at improving things. THe way I see it, there's only so much improvement possible with the dogs. How Are you going to stop them from waking you up in the morning? Disturbing you at night? Perhaps they will build fences around all the lawns to prootect the plantings? I don't know. Isn't it amazing how owners will let their dogs into flower beds and urinate and defecate right on the flowers. I mean, wouldn't common sense dictate not to do things like that?

I'm willing to accept that it's over as far as this being a livable place for the long term anymore, but that's why I support conversion. I will buy, wait for the flip tax regs to disappear and then sell so I can get the hell out of here. With the proceeds I will be able to buy something else in manhattan. It's not the worst thing in the world. Sure I would love to stay. I'll give it a go and see what happens, but I doubt some of these QOL issues will be resolved. Everything comes to an end.

Hall of Shame Award to CWCapital from Stuy Town And Peter Cooper Village Tenants

Awarded for the Roberts Settlement Massacre, in which many tenants received mid-lease rent increases from hundreds to over a thousand dollars, compelling tenants to examine the need to move out with their families at short notice. Doubly awarded for the Oval Park Massacre, in which healthy trees were cut down and plantings viciously uprooted to make way for an institutionalized look of order.

Thinking of Renting in PCVST?

Read Yelp reviews to find out what it's like living here.

Banned Dog Breeds in Stuy Town

Cute rottweiler. But... looks like there is some difficulty in enforcing the ban on certain dog breeds allowed inside Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village. Somehow pitbulls and pitbull mixes have been registered in STPCV and are allowed to be freely walked about the grounds! Another fail of enforcing the rules around here? You decide!

Follow by Email

Stuyvesant Town Newsreel

Read it and Weep

Current Value of ST/PCV

Was 5.4 Billion Dollars when Tishman Speyer bought the place.Became 1.7 Billion Dollars when Tishman Speyer left, with their tail between their legs.Current estimate? Over 2 Billion?

Ex-landlord

Rob Speyer

1947 Stuy Town Plaque Honoring Met Life Chairman F.H. Ecker (Removed in 2002 and never seen again)

"... who with the vision of experience and the energy of youth conceived and brought into being this project, and others like it, that families of moderate means might live in health, comfort and dignity in park-like communities and that a pattern might be set of private enterprise productively devoted to public service."

Co-op/Condo Conversions

Non-Eviction Conversion:
Requires commitment from purchasers for 15% of the apartments. Both rent regulated and market rate tenants are given the opportunity to purchase. Rent regulated tenants cannot be evicted because they choose not to buy. However, the owner is not required to offer a lease renewal to market-rate tenants.
Eviction Conversion:
Requires written commitment from 51% of the tenants in occupancy. All tenants are given the opportunity to purchase. Those who choose not to can be evicted. For rent stabilized tenants who choose not to purchase, they can be evicted within 3 years after the plan is declared effective. However, rent stabilized tenants who are disabled or senior citizens are exempt from eviction. Market rate tenants can be evicted at the end of their lease. Less likely conversion tactic. [The TA insists that any plan they support will be non-eviction.]

I am writing on behalf of everyone at Tishman Speyer to express how honored we are to become part of your outstanding community. We are a business with deep roots in New York, a true love of our city and a great respect for the neighborhoods that make it special. We are committed to maintaining the unique character and environment that have made Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town such a wonderful place to live for so long. We look forward to providing you an extraordinary level of service and attentiveness that will be the source of pride and satisfaction for the entire community.

Neighborhood Recommendations

New to Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village? Here are some basic recommendations.

Best supermarket: Associated on 14th St. between 1st Ave. and Ave A. The cheapest prices, fantastic weekly sales, very affordable lunches; solid, responsive management. Some of the young female cashiers have attitude to spare, though. May be too far for Peter Cooper residents.

Best deli: A Stuy Town favorite is Lenz's on 20 St. between the 20 St. Loop. The way New York used to be. Be careful of unwanted "pepper" in your food, however. Lenz's has a B grade rating and was temporarily closed down due to an order from the Health Department. Bruno's on First Avenue is more upscale, with a greater selection of food items (higher-priced, too), but was closed down by the Health Department in June.

Best post office: Forget it! The post office on 14th St. is generally a nightmare, with long lines and, now, even shorter hours.

Disappointments:

The Stuy Town Starbucks on First Ave. is not very cozy, and the music in the morning is too loud and uptempo. Gently awaken the souls off to work....

More recommendations to come!

Macular Degeneration Support Group

If you are currently diagnosed with Macular Degeneration, the New York Eye & Ear Infirmary is offering a support group for you. Conveniently located next to the Peter Cooper Village Stuyvesant Town apartment complex, our group offers the opportunity to share stories with other members, listen to expert guest speakers, and learn coping strategies to reduce stress. Our group runs on the first Wednesday of every month and we would enjoy seeing you there.
Please contact Baptiste Nicolas, Social Work Assistant at 212-979-4105 for further information and to see if this group is right for you!